ACCOUNTABILITY

Chapter : ACCOUNTABILITY

In one word, Accountability means ‘Answerability’. Accountability in terms of answerability refers to the obligation of an individual or organization to explain and justify their actions or decisions to others. It involves being responsible for the outcomes of those actions and being prepared to respond to any questions or scrutiny that may arise.

 

Accountability and Bureaucracy

Accountability in the Indian bureaucracy refers to the obligation of government officials and institutions to answer for their actions, justify their decisions, and face consequences if they fail to meet their duties. It ensures that public officials are responsible for both their actions and inactions while managing public resources and executing public duties. Here are some real-world examples of accountability (or the lack thereof) in Indian bureaucracy:

1. Public Service Delivery: In programs like the Public Distribution System (PDS), which provides food grains to the economically weaker sections, accountability is crucial. For instance, if food grains do not reach the beneficiaries due to leakage or corruption, the officials responsible can be held accountable through audits, inspections, and public grievance redressal mechanisms. The aim is to ensure that the system functions transparently and effectively.
2. Financial Accountability: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India plays a critical role in auditing government receipts and expenditures. The CAG’s reports often highlight discrepancies and suggest improvements. This scrutiny ensures that public funds are used efficiently and for the intended purposes. An example is the audit report on telecom licensing fees, which led to significant policy changes and legal proceedings known as the 2G spectrum case.
3. Administrative Accountability: The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a powerful tool in the hands of citizens to hold bureaucrats accountable. It allows citizens to request information on government activities. A common use case is a citizen inquiring about the status of a road repair or a government housing scheme, thereby forcing officials to expedite processes or disclose reasons for delay.
4. Legal Accountability: Judiciary plays a crucial role in holding bureaucrats accountable by interpreting and enforcing laws. For instance, if an environmental regulation is flouted by a government department, affected parties can appeal to the courts, which can hold the officials accountable, potentially leading to penalties or corrective actions.
5. Performance-Based Accountability: The introduction of performance reviews and appraisals in the bureaucracy helps ensure that officials meet their targets and work efficiently. Officials may face demotions, denied promotions, or other administrative actions if their performance is found lacking.

These mechanisms aim to ensure that the bureaucracy functions in an efficient, transparent, and responsive manner, adhering to the principles of accountability. However, the effectiveness of these accountability measures often varies, depending on the robustness of the implementation and the willingness of the bureaucracy to reform and adapt.

 

 

Vertical and Horizontal accountability

Vertical and horizontal accountability are two dimensions of accountability mechanisms designed to check power within governments and organizations. Each type functions in a distinct way and targets different aspects of governance and management.

Vertical Accountability

Vertical accountability refers to the mechanisms through which individuals or entities within a hierarchy are held accountable by those higher up or lower down in the hierarchy, often involving non-governmental actors like citizens or the media. This form typically includes electoral and legal systems, as well as public engagements that allow citizens to hold their leaders accountable.

Example:

• Elections: In India, general elections provide a clear example of vertical accountability. Every few years, citizens have the opportunity to vote for their representatives in the government. This electoral process holds elected officials accountable to the public, as their actions while in office will influence their chances of re-election.
• Public Grievance Redressal Mechanisms: Systems like public hearings and complaint resolution mechanisms in local government bodies enable citizens to raise issues directly with their elected officials or administrative bodies, which must then address these grievances, thereby holding public servants accountable directly to the people they serve.

Horizontal Accountability

Horizontal accountability occurs within the government itself, through structures that enable certain branches or agencies to check the powers and conduct of others. It operates across the same level of authority, involving internal checks and balances provided by equal bodies within the government structure.

Example:

• Judicial Review: The Supreme Court and High Courts in India have the authority to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive orders. This is a form of horizontal accountability where the judiciary checks the legislature and executive, ensuring that their actions adhere to the constitution. For example, if the government passes a law that is seen as violating constitutional provisions, the judiciary has the power to strike it down.
• Legislative Oversight Committees: Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in the Indian Parliament play a crucial role in reviewing the national government’s expenditures, which are reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). The PAC can summon government officials to explain their expenditures and ensure funds are used properly, representing horizontal accountability between the legislature and the executive.

These mechanisms are essential for a robust democratic governance structure, ensuring that power is not only checked from above and below but also from within at the same level. By integrating both vertical and horizontal accountability, a system can enhance its integrity, prevent abuse of power, and ensure that its actions remain aligned with laws, ethical standards, and public expectations.

 

 

Types of Accountabilities (Area wise)

Accountability in Indian bureaucracy can be categorized into several types, each playing a crucial role in ensuring that government officials and institutions are performing their duties effectively and ethically. Here’s an overview of different types of accountability, along with examples from Indian bureaucracy:

1. Political Accountability:
   • Ministers and elected officials are held accountable through the process of elections and parliamentary proceedings. For instance, a minister in the Government of India is accountable to the Parliament for decisions and policies of their department. If there is perceived poor performance or corruption, it can lead to questions, debates, and even a no-confidence motion in the parliament.
2. Administrative Accountability:
   • Bureaucrats are accountable for their administrative decisions through internal mechanisms like performance appraisals, audits, and reviews. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are two entities that monitor and investigate corruption and misconduct in the bureaucracy. These bodies ensure that bureaucrats adhere to procedural and legal standards.
3. Legal Accountability:
   • The judiciary holds government officials accountable by ensuring that their actions comply with the law. Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are a prominent example, where the Supreme Court or High Courts intervene to address administrative actions affecting the rights of the people. For instance, the Supreme Court has intervened in cases related to environmental protection, human rights, and corruption.
4. Financial Accountability:
   • The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India audits government revenues and expenditures. The CAG’s reports are critical in holding various government departments accountable for financial efficiency and transparency. These reports are then examined by the Public Accounts Committee, which can call for further action or reforms based on the findings.
5. Ethical Accountability:
   • Ethics in bureaucracy is monitored by various codes of conduct and ethics guidelines. For example, the ‘All India Services Conduct Rules’ govern the behaviour of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), and other services. Breaches of these guidelines can lead to disciplinary actions, ensuring that officials uphold integrity and ethical standards in public service.
6. Social Accountability:
   • Tools like the Right to Information Act, 2005 enable citizens to request information about government operations, promoting transparency and accountability directly from the citizenry. Social audits, another example, allow the public to scrutinize government projects and schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) to ensure proper utilization of funds and adherence to policy objectives.

These diverse forms of accountability work together to form a comprehensive framework aimed at ensuring that government functions are carried out responsibly, effectively, and in alignment with the public interest.

 

Accountability in Governance

Accountability in governance refers to the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which public officials are held responsible for their actions and decisions in the management of public resources, the administration of public projects, and the execution of public duties. It is a fundamental principle that ensures public officials act in the best interest of the citizens they serve.

Examples of Accountability in Indian Bureaucracy

1. Public Financial Management:
   • Example: Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India: The CAG is an independent authority under the Constitution of India responsible for auditing all receipts and expenditure of the Government of India and the state governments, including those of bodies and authorities substantially financed by the government. The CAG ensures fiscal transparency and accountability in government operations. The audit reports of CAG are taken up by the Public Accounts Committees of the Parliament and state legislatures, which review them to ensure that public money has been spent appropriately and suggest corrective actions if there are discrepancies.
2. Administrative Accountability:
   • Example: Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005: This act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities, thereby promoting transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. Through RTI, citizens can ask for details regarding government decisions, the reasons behind them, and the processes involved. For instance, a citizen can request information about the funds allocated and spent on a local infrastructure project. The act mandates a timely response from the concerned authority, failing which penalties may be imposed on the responsible officer, thus holding them accountable.
3. Performance Monitoring:
   • Example: Performance Management Division (PMD) under the Cabinet Secretariat: This division handles the performance monitoring and evaluation system for various ministries and departments. It sets specific targets and metrics for each department and evaluates them at the end of the year. This system ensures that each department and its officials are not just performing their duties but are also striving towards efficiency and effectiveness in their operations.
4. Judicial Accountability:
   • Example: Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: Although not yet enacted, this proposed bill aims to lay down enforceable standards of conduct for judges. It proposes mechanisms for the general public to complain against judges of the higher judiciary regarding any misconduct, thereby introducing a layer of accountability in the judiciary, which is crucial for the administration of justice.
5. Local Governance:
   • Example: Social Audit under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA): Social audits are conducted by the gram sabha (village assembly) in which the local community verifies the administrative and financial activities carried out, discusses the effectiveness of the program, and examines the official records. This practice holds local officials accountable directly to the community they serve.

These examples illustrate how accountability in Indian governance encompasses various dimensions from financial audits to performance reviews and legal reforms, each contributing to a governance system that is more responsive, efficient, and aligned with the needs and rights of the citizens.

 

 

 

How to ensure accountability in the system

In the context of public service, ‘accountability’ refers to the obligation of public officials and institutions to explain their decisions and actions, be transparent in their workings, and be subject to oversight and scrutiny by the public and designated authorities. This ensures that they operate in the interest of the public, adhere to legal and ethical standards, and are responsive to the needs and rights of the citizens they serve.

To ensure individual and collective accountability of public servants, several measures can be adopted:

1. Transparent Practices

• Implementation of Open Government Data: By making government data openly accessible, public officials are compelled to act more responsibly.
• Public Access to Information: Strengthening laws like the Right to Information Act to make the process more user-friendly and less susceptible to delays or denials.

2. Regular Audits and Evaluations

• Financial Audits: Regular and rigorous financial audits by independent bodies like the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) can help detect and deter misuse of public funds.
• Performance Evaluations: Implementing regular performance evaluations for public servants based on clear, measurable criteria and making these evaluations part of the public record when appropriate.

3. Legal Frameworks and Enforcement

• Strengthening Anti-Corruption Laws: Ensuring that laws are not only stringent but also uniformly enforced to deter misconduct.
• Judicial Oversight: Facilitating easier access to legal recourse for citizens and civil society to challenge unlawful or unethical actions by public officials.

4. Participatory Mechanisms

• Public Consultations and Involvement: Encouraging public participation in decision-making processes, such as urban planning and environmental assessments.
• Social Audits: Community-led audits of government projects and schemes can help monitor performance and compliance directly by the beneficiaries.

5. Ethical Training and Development

• Mandatory Ethics Training: Regular training programs on ethics and integrity to reinforce the values expected of public servants.
• Creating a Culture of Accountability: Promoting a workplace culture where ethical conduct is valued and rewarded.

6. Protecting Whistleblowers

• Robust Whistleblower Protection: Ensuring that individuals who report wrongdoing are protected from retaliation, thereby encouraging more public servants and citizens to come forward with information about corruption or malpractice.

7. Technology and Innovation

• E-Governance Initiatives: Using technology to automate processes, reduce human error, and increase transparency and efficiency in public services.
• Digital Feedback Mechanisms: Implementing systems where citizens can easily provide feedback or complaints about public services.

By adopting these measures, individual and collective accountability can be enhanced, leading to a more transparent, efficient, and responsive public service sector.

 

 

Accountability and Transparency

Accountability and transparency are fundamental principles that support the integrity and effectiveness of both public and private organizations. Here’s how they are defined and how they interrelate:

Definitions

Accountability refers to the obligation of individuals, organizations, or entities to account for their activities, accept responsibility for them, and disclose the results in a transparent manner. It also includes the responsibility to report, explain, and be answerable for resulting consequences.

Transparency is about openness, communication, and visibility. It means that actions, decisions, and processes are clear and understandable to outsiders, and that information is accessible and easily available to those who are entitled to it.

 

 

Relationship Between Accountability and Transparency

Transparency and accountability are closely linked: transparency is seen as the precursor to accountability. Without transparency, accountability becomes difficult to achieve because stakeholders must have access to information to hold any entity accountable. On the other hand, transparency without accountability may not ensure that actions or decisions are in alignment with agreed-upon standards or regulations.

Examples

1. In Government: Consider the role of an anti-corruption agency. Transparency is achieved when the agency publishes its methods for tracking government spending on its website, accessible to all citizens. Accountability is involved when the agency must explain its findings to the public and other governmental bodies, particularly if irregularities are found. For instance, the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in India involves auditing government expenditures and publishing these audits. This process not only keeps the government’s financial activities open to public review but also holds specific departments or officials accountable for unauthorized or illegal expenditures.
2. In Corporations: A publicly-traded company demonstrates transparency by openly publishing its financial reports, thereby allowing shareholders and the public to review its business operations and financial performance. Accountability is present when, following these reports, the company holds an annual meeting where shareholders can question the CEO and board of directors about the company’s results and strategic decisions. For example, if a company claims to support environmental sustainability, transparency would involve disclosing its environmental impact assessments, while accountability would require it to respond to stakeholders’ queries about environmental incidents or deviations from its commitments.
3. In Nonprofits: A nonprofit organization showcases transparency by detailing its use of funds and the outcomes of its programs on its website. Accountability occurs when it measures its program impacts against its mission statement and objectives and reports these findings to its donors and the public. This is critical, for instance, in disaster relief organizations, where donors expect not just clear information on how their money was spent, but also the actual impact on disaster-affected communities, thus holding the organization accountable for the effective use of funds.

In summary, while transparency ensures that stakeholders have the information necessary to evaluate the actions of an organization, accountability ensures that these actions are examined against a set of standards or expectations, and that there are mechanisms in place to address any discrepancies or failures. Together, they promote an environment of trust, integrity, and good governance.

 

 

Financial Accountability

Financial accountability refers to the responsibility of individuals, organizations, or governments to manage and report on the receipt and expenditure of funds in a transparent and accurate manner. It involves proper financial management, adherence to budgetary norms, and the effective use of resources to meet the intended objectives. The key aspects of financial accountability include the obligation to report, justify and be responsible for financial decisions and transactions.

 

Financial Accountability in action:

Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India: The institution of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India is a stellar example of financial accountability in the Indian polity. Established by the Constitution of India, the CAG is an independent authority responsible for auditing all receipts and expenditures of the Government of India and the state governments, including those of bodies and authorities substantially financed by the government.

The CAG’s role encompasses a wide array of functions that ensure the government’s finances are managed effectively and transparently:

• Audit of Government Accounts: The CAG audits the accounts of the Union and State governments and any other entity financed by the government. This includes the audit of government corporations, autonomous bodies, and authorities.
• Reporting to Parliament and State Legislatures: After completing the audits, the CAG reports are submitted to the President or the Governor, who then lay these reports before the Parliament or the respective state legislatures. These documents are critical as they include performance audits that assess whether money was spent efficiently and for the intended purposes.
• Public Accounts Committee (PAC): The findings of the CAG often form the basis for scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament. This committee, which consists of members of Parliament, examines the CAG report and calls on government officers to explain discrepancies, inefficiencies, or financial mismanagement reported by the CAG. The PAC plays a crucial role in holding the government accountable for its fiscal management.

Historical Impact

Historically, the CAG has played a significant role in highlighting several critical issues in Indian governance:

• 2G Spectrum Scandal: One of the most high-profile cases where the CAG played a pivotal role was in the 2G spectrum allocation case. The CAG’s report exposed irregularities and procedural lapses in the allocation of 2G spectrum licenses in 2008, estimating a potential loss of up to ₹1.76 lakh crore to the Indian exchequer. This report not only led to significant political repercussions but also triggered reforms in the telecom policy and auction system.
• Coal Allocation Scandal (Coalgate): Similarly, the CAG report on the allocation of coal blocks in 2012 pointed out that the country might have lost ₹1.86 lakh crore because of the inefficient process employed by the government in allocating coal deposits. This report was instrumental in changing the coal allocation process to a more transparent auction method.

These instances underscore the essential role that financial accountability mechanisms like the CAG play in safeguarding public resources, ensuring transparency, and fostering trust in public administration by highlighting inefficiencies and promoting reforms.

 

 

Do we need accountability

Accountability in governance is crucial for several fundamental reasons, all of which contribute to the effective, fair, and transparent operation of government. Here’s why accountability is especially critical in this context:

1. Ensures Transparency

Accountability demands openness in government activities, decisions, and spending. When governments are transparent, their actions are visible to the public, which helps in preventing corruption and mismanagement. This visibility allows citizens to understand how decisions are made and how public funds are allocated and spent, fostering greater public trust in governmental institutions.

2. Promotes Responsible Governance

When government officials know they must account for their actions and decisions, they are more likely to act responsibly. Accountability mechanisms such as audits, oversight committees, and public reporting ensure that officials can’t abuse their power without facing potential consequences. This helps in ensuring that decisions are made based on public interest rather than personal gain.

3. Improves Efficiency and Performance

Accountability mechanisms often include performance metrics and evaluations that help assess the effectiveness of government programs and policies. This drives improvements and helps ensure that government initiatives achieve their intended outcomes without unnecessary expenditure of resources. It also identifies areas where reforms are needed, enabling a more adaptive and responsive government.

4. Builds Public Trust

Trust in government is essential for the stability and functioning of a democratic society. Accountability contributes to building this trust by showing citizens that the government acts with integrity and is committed to serving the public good. When citizens see that corrupt or inefficient officials are held responsible, their faith in the system is strengthened.

5. Encourages Citizen Engagement

Accountability in governance involves and encourages active participation from the public. Mechanisms like the Right to Information (RTI) empower citizens to engage directly with the government by seeking information that interests or affects them. This engagement is crucial for a vibrant democracy, as it keeps citizens informed and involved in the political process.

6. Upholds the Rule of Law

Accountability ensures that all government actions are subject to the same legal standards as private actions. This adherence to the rule of law is fundamental to a just society. By holding officials accountable, the government reinforces the principle that nobody is above the law, thereby protecting the rights and liberties of all citizens.

7. Facilitates Justice and Redressal of Grievances

Through accountability, citizens have mechanisms to address grievances and seek redress when government action infringes on their rights or fails to meet legal or ethical standards. This not only provides a direct way to correct wrongs but also helps in maintaining social harmony by ensuring that grievances are not ignored.

In summary, accountability in governance is not merely an administrative practice; it is a fundamental principle that ensures the government remains effective, transparent, and just, serving the public interest while fostering a democratic environment where citizens are valued and heard.

 

 

 

 

“Madaari” (2016):

• Value: Accountability
• Example: Irfan Khan plays a common man who holds the government accountable for the death of his son due to negligence in infrastructure projects. The movie emphasizes the need for public servants to be answerable for their actions.

 

Case Study

Ravi Kumar, an IAS officer, is serving as the District Magistrate (DM) in a semi-urban district where a new public hospital is being constructed. The project, which began two years ago, is severely delayed due to poor coordination between contractors, allegations of mismanagement of funds, and corruption. The local population, particularly the underprivileged, are suffering due to a lack of adequate healthcare facilities.

The media, civil society organizations, and the local population are demanding accountability from the administration. Political leaders are pressuring Ravi to cover up the issues, citing elections in the near future. On the other hand, Ravi feels responsible for ensuring the timely completion of the hospital, as it directly impacts the health and well-being of the district’s residents.

Ravi faces the challenge of balancing political pressures, public interest, and his duty to ensure accountability and transparency.

Question 1: What are the alternatives available to Ravi Kumar?

1. Ignore the Issue and Yield to Political Pressure:
   • Pros: Avoids conflict with powerful political leaders, protects Ravi’s career from immediate backlash, and prevents negative media coverage during election season.
   • Cons: Violates Ravi’s duty to the public, fails to address the problem, and allows corruption and inefficiency to persist, further delaying the hospital and harming the community.
2. Launch a Full-Scale Investigation into the Delays:
   • Pros: Promotes transparency and accountability by identifying those responsible for the delays and mismanagement. Sends a message that Ravi is committed to public welfare and will not tolerate corruption.
   • Cons: Could provoke political backlash, with possible interference from influential figures. The investigation may slow down the project further if key contractors or officials are found guilty.
3. Compromise by Initiating Minor Reforms and Avoiding a Full Investigation:
   • Pros: Balances the need for progress with political pressures, potentially accelerating the hospital’s completion without causing major conflicts with political leaders.
   • Cons: Fails to fully address the underlying issues of corruption and mismanagement, allowing the cycle of inefficiency to continue. The long-term credibility of public institutions could suffer.
4. Engage Civil Society and Media for Transparency and Public Monitoring:
   • Pros: Inviting media and civil society to monitor the progress of the hospital construction increases public accountability, ensures transparency, and strengthens public trust.
   • Cons: This may attract unwanted political scrutiny and cause friction between Ravi and political leaders who prefer to keep the issue under wraps.

Question 2: What is the best alternative?

The best alternative for Ravi Kumar is to launch a full-scale investigation into the delays and mismanagement of the hospital project while simultaneously engaging civil society and the media to ensure transparency and accountability.

Solution:

Ravi Kumar should prioritize public accountability and transparency by initiating a thorough investigation into the delays and mismanagement of the hospital construction project. This will help identify the key individuals responsible for corruption or inefficiency and bring them to justice. By addressing the root cause of the delays, Ravi will ensure that the project is completed in the public’s best interest.

Steps to Implement the Solution:

1. Investigate the Project Delays: Ravi should launch a transparent investigation into the causes of the delays, mismanagement, and fund misappropriation. He should form a special task force to identify those responsible.
2. Engage with Civil Society: Ravi should collaborate with civil society organizations and local leaders to ensure that the investigation is transparent and that the public is informed of its progress. This builds public trust.
3. Involve the Media for Transparency: By involving the media, Ravi can provide regular updates on the progress of the investigation and the construction project, ensuring that the public remains aware of the administration’s efforts to correct the issue.
4. Ensure Accountability: Ravi should take corrective measures, including penalizing contractors or officials found guilty of mismanagement or corruption, and appoint competent teams to expedite the completion of the hospital.
5. Communicate with Political Leaders: Ravi should diplomatically communicate with political leaders, explaining that a transparent and accountable process is essential for public trust, especially during an election period. Ensuring the hospital’s completion will ultimately benefit both the public and political interests.

Justification:

By launching a full-scale investigation and involving civil society and the media, Ravi Kumar upholds the principles of accountability, transparency, and public service. This solution ensures that the hospital is completed, addresses the public’s grievances, and restores trust in the administration. Although there may be political challenges, Ravi’s commitment to public welfare and accountability will ultimately serve the best interests of the community and reinforce ethical governance.

 

PE 8     Practice Q

Define accountability in public administration. Why is it considered essential for good governance?

How does accountability in civil services contribute to public trust and transparency? Provide examples to support your answer.

Explain the relationship between accountability and ethical governance. How can civil servants ensure they remain accountable to the public?

 

PE 9     Glossary

Accountability: The obligation of individuals or organizations to explain, justify, and take responsibility for their actions and decisions, ensuring transparency and trust.

Ethical Accountability: The duty to act according to moral principles and standards, where actions are transparent, justifiable, and responsible to uphold ethical integrity.

Social Accountability: A form of accountability where citizens, civil society, and communities hold public officials and institutions responsible for the delivery of public services and governance.